Last fall Wang sued Netscape for infringing a 1985 patent
[1] that
it claims covers the Save As command and the idea of bookmarks in a
browser
[2]. Now that Netscape enjoys the loyalty of tens of
thousands of developers, it is asking this community for help in finding
prior art to bust the patent. Netscape puts its request in
provocative terms on the top page of mozilla.org
[3], suggesting a
connection between the lawsuit and Wang's recently expanded alliance
with Microsoft. Neither news stories
[4] nor discussion in the
developer community
[5] have turned up any indication that Microsoft
actually has anything to do with this lawsuit.
thread("spx") ?>

In the early 1990s Wang was in Chapter 11 and seemed to be
systematically mining its patent portfolio for revenue. The company sued
a number of chip makers who it said infringed its patents on the
SIMM technology widely used in memory modules
[6].
In 1993 Wang
filed against Kodak for infringing imaging software patents. On the
same day Wang sued Microsoft over OLE technology used in imaging
products from a Microsoft partner, Watermark, which was also named
in the suit. Today's close Microsoft/Wang cooperation stems from
discussions arising out of that lawsuit.

A federal judge has ruled
[7]
that Internet service providers can't
be sued in civil courts for the editorial content they carry. U.S.
District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman's ruling was based on wording
included in the Communications Decency Act that specifically
exempts ISPs from liability for content.
The ruling came in the libel
suit filed by White House advisor Sidney Blumenthal against the
Internet journalist Matt Drudge for a story in his Drudge Report.
AOL was named in the suit because it carries that report; but of
course Drudge's Web site can be accessed from any ISP. By going
after AOL Blumenthal was invoking the Willy Sutton principle
[8].

There hasn't been such a convergence of firepower on Microsoft since
late last year
[9]. Then, the Jusice Department filed a contempt of
court motion when Microsoft reacted to Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson's antitrust order with a policy of "compliance with a raised
middle finger," in the ringing phrase of the SJ Mercury News.

Feed.
Feed magazine, smarting from the LA Times's scoop on Microsoft's
stealth PR campaign
[10],
claimed it had obtained copies of some of
the concocted letters prominent people were supposed to write to
their local editors. Read them here
[11],
but please don't take the
parody seriously.

Appeal.
On 4/21 Microsoft met the DoJ in court before a 3-judge panel
[12]
and argued its appeal of the December 11 ruling and of Jackson's
appointment of a special master in the case. The company had pulled
its now predictable last-minute marketplace concession by announcing
its firm intention to ship a Windows 98 version without Active
Channel Bar
[13]
(as mentioned aside in TBTF for 1998-03-09
[14]). Observers
agreed
[15] that the judges handled the DoJ lawyers far more roughly
than Microsoft's.

Dole.
The anti-Microsoft lobby fronted by Bob Dole, mentioned in TBTF for
1997-12-27
[9],
has come out shooting. It's called ProComp
[16]
and in
the effort Dole is joined by Robert Bork, one of the men who didn't
make it to the Supreme Court bench on Ronald Reagan's watch.
Just don't call them Bole and Dork.

Note added 1998-04-27:
This issue as published mistakenly claimed that Bork had been rejected for the Supreme Court
in the Nixon era. Thanks to Greg Aaron <aaronsf at ix dot netcom dot com> for setting the
record straight.

Nader.
On 4/20 consumer activist Ralph Nader and his colleague Jamie Love
took a broad look
[17]
at Microsoft's business practices and global
strategy in the Cato Institute's Policy Forum on Antitrust and
Microsoft. They reminded us of the days when competition was hot in
the DOS market, when Microsoft was rumored to manipulate features
of the OS to the detriment of its competitors:

Microsoft has done this for a long time, going back to the
days when programmers coined the phrase, DOS isn't done until
Lotus won't run.

Bluescreen.
Also on 4/20, the demo gods were not smiling on Bill Gates at
Comdex as Windows 98 blue-screened while he was demonstrating its ease
of use in the keynote address
[18]. Hate it when that happens. Here's
a QuickTime movie
[19] (1.6 MB). I've keyframed it for the
bandwidth-challenged
[20] (60K).

Caldera.
An overlooked lawsuit dating from those long-ago days of
DOS
competition is re-emerging as the one to watch. Caldera, who nowadays
sells a commercial Linux product, also owns the rights to DR-DOS.
Caldera sued Microsoft over its tactics leading up to the total
dominance of DOS and its sublimation into the new operating system,
Windows 95. This summary from NC World magazine
[21] nicely wraps
up the case so far. Thanks to Jimmy Liberato
<liberato at cs dot nps dot navy dot mil> for pointing out this lawsuit.

Caldera Inc... has been engaged in a long-running court battle
with Microsoft over anti-competitive practices in the DOS
market. Caldera was recently allowed by the court to amend its
complaint to include the allegedly illegal bundling of DOS
with Windows 95 in order to eliminate DOS competition. The
outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications,
even into the world of network-centric computing.

When can government agents dispense with the nicety of a search warrant?

Since the days of the Clipper Chip John Gilmore has been wondering
why agents of the US government were always so careful to use the
phrase "lawful access" when talking about recovering users' secret
keys. Did they mean a warrant issued by a judge? Then why didn't
they ever say that? Now Gilmore believes he has found his long-sought
loophole in Executive Order 12333
[22], signed by Ronald Reagan in
1981. This so-called "keystone document" redefined the US
intelligence community. The salient portion for Gilmore's analysis is:

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (1791)

The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.

2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby
is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence
purposes, within the United States or against a United States
person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be
required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided
that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the
Attorney General has determined in each case that there is
probable cause to believe that the technique is directed
against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

If the Attorney General affirms a belief that you are a foreign
agent, then you have no right under the US Constitution to security
in your person, house, papers, and effects. This is the law of the land.
And remember that the FBI
justified its years-long surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
predating this Executive Order, on the grounds of suspicion that
he was acting for a foreign government.

As PGP has moved from freeware to buttoned-down corporate, some cypherpunks are re-examining its trustworthiness

Phil Zimmermann's freeware program Pretty Good Privacy was the
Promethean gift of strong cryptography early in this decade
[23]. Its
source code was published from the first so that those knowledgeable
in such matters could assure themselves that the crypto was strong
and the code contained no back doors to compromise security.
Someone, not Zimmermann, posted PGP to the Net in 1991. In 1993 the
Justice Department commenced an investigation into whether
Zimmermann had broken any US laws in this affair -- though no one doubted
his claim that he was not the one who posted PGP. After the DoJ
dropped its case in 1996 Zimmermann formed PGP, Inc.; the company
continued to publish full source code and to distribute a free
version of PGP. It was when PGP, Inc. was acquired by McAfee
Associates last December
[24] that dyed-in-the-wool cypherpunks began
questioning whether PGP deserved their continuing trust. When the
newly merged company, called Network Associates, acquired Trusted
Information Systems in February
[25] the doubts multiplied.

Now Tom Paine <pnet at proliberty dot com> has put together an exhaustive
analysis and resource list
[26] on PGP, Inc.
and its roots in
Zimmermann's freeware program. It aims to answer the question "Can we
trust PGP, Inc.?" -- or at least to provide research sources so that
you can answer this question for yourself. Along the way you get a
pretty good tutorial in the technology of public-key encryption, why
factoring is hard, what key recovery means to personal privacy,
background on the Key Recovery Alliance, insight from SEC filings
on who controls PGP's new corporate master, etc. The site also
addresses matters of more practical import to everyday users, such
as: Which version of PGP should you use? What compatibility issues
exist with older versions of the software? Why should you use
encryption even if it's not perfect? The perspective is that of the
hardcore, skeptical cypherpunk and the research is thorough and
orderly.

My own view? I still trust PGP and use its commercial version 5.5.1.
But I'm watching, following the only piece of advice Ronald Reagan
ever uttered with which I unconditionally agree: Trust, but verify.

So many exclusionary sites, so little time. Readers have been busily
sending in nominations for the Hall of Shame
[27] to shine a
spotlight of (we hope) unwelcome publicity on the lazy or mean-spirited
Web site owners who refuse to welcome all of their visitors equally.
New additions are:

A Linux fan site that slams the door rudely on visitors using
Internet Explorer

A site that on its front page admits to its laziness in not
bothering even to try to accommodate Netscape browsers

A Canadian MSN site that provides a reduced GIF image of the
full site to visitors who come using Netscape, that they may
pine for the rich multimedia experience they are missing, and
perhaps relent their non-Microsoft ways

Dan Bricklin <danb at trellix dot com> has thought a lot in recent years
about authoring for hypertext environments. His company
[28] makes
tools to ease this very task
[29],
[30]. Now Bricklin has put up a new
site, Good Documents
[31], for discussion on how to write business
documents for intranets and the Internet. I don't know of another
site with such a sharp focus on presenting information written by an
individual to convey ideas and knowledge to others, and not on the
mechanics, formatting, or tools of Web construction. Do pay a visit,
and contribute to the discussion, if you care about writing for this
new medium.

When the only tool you have is a hammer everything starts to look
like a nail. The whimsical Foundation for the Mis-Application of
Computer Languages
[32],
creation of Alex Hunsley <lard at tardis dot ed dot ac dot uk>,
celebrates the use of hammers to pound in earthworms. A
perfect example is a Unix text editor implemented by
FoMCoL member-in-good-standing
Claudio Calvelli <clc at assurdo dot com>
[33]
using nothing but /bin/sh and /bin/dd
[34]. Calvelli has also built
a Turing machine from the same unlikely timber
[35]. The site for these unnatural
acts sports a domain name from the island of Saint Helena: dd.sh.

I picked up the FoMCoL reference from Need to Know
[36]. Anyone who
followed each link in a single issue of NTK would surely go mad.

In closing, a few examples from my extensive historical collection
of email signatures (no .sig? go .fig) clustered around languages
and text editors.

Notes

This week's TBTF title
comes from William S. Burroughs
[37], who died
last August at 83
[38] after a life of prodigal excess. Laurie
Anderson took inspiration from Burroughs for the song "Language is a
Virus from Outer Space"
[39].
When I saw her perform in 1984 she had
Burroughs on the stage, narrating "Sharkey's Day" in his inimitable
flat midwestern smoker's lash of a voice.